User:Monty845/RFA Criteria
The following are my criteria for supporting a Candidate at RFA. They are at most a guideline, and are subject to discretion on a case by case basis.
- 2000 Edits.[1]
- Account that is at least 6 months old.
- Candidate demonstrates a reasonable level of recent activity (100 edits a month for 3 months).
- No blocks.[2][3]
- Candidate has provided a clear explanation of the administrative areas where they initially intend to work, and has a strong track record of experience in that area.[4]
- For candidates that intend to work in the following commonly mentioned areas:
- CSD - Substantial CSD tagging, Few or no tags rejected unless the article was improved subsequent to tagging. Demonstration that the candidate clearly understands criteria A7, either based on editing history, or discussion at RFA. Review of CSD tagging, and removal of inappropriate tags is a bonus.
- XfD - Sufficient nomination and or participation to judge that the candidate understands how the process works, preferably has made NACs that have not been disputed.
- AIV/Vandal Blocking - Many reports to AIV, no reports rejected out of hand,[5] most reports should have resulted in a block.
- RFPP - Many requests to RFPP, no requests rejected out of hand, most requests should have been granted.
- Candidate should respond civilly to criticism, even when it is unfounded.
- No major competence issues, mistakes happen but they should not be widespread,[6] and should be corrected when identified.[7]
- Candidate has not done anything to suggest they would intentionally misuse the admin tool-set.
Notes[edit]
- ^ Editors with fewer edits, may be supported if they have been editing for a particularly long time, and can demonstrate that they keep up on applicable policies.
- ^ Blocks that are overturned on the merits will be disregarded.
- ^ Blocks over 6 months old may be disregarded if the candidate appears to have learned from what ever caused the block.
- ^ Lack of experience in other administrative areas will not be held against the candidate.
- ^ Reports that are determined not to be vandalism at all, or that are extremely stale, as opposed to cases where vandalism occurred, but a block may be premature at the time of reporting.
- ^ Continuing to make the same mistake until it is brought to the candidates attention isn't that bad, making lots of mistakes in different areas is.
- ^ In addition to not repeating the mistake, the Candidate should react constructively when a mistake they have made is brought to their attention, acknowledge it was made, and take what any corrective action warranted.